« February 2003 | Main | November 2008 »
There's nothing like a 15-2 win on opening day.
In their first opening day under manager Dusty Baker, the Cubs took advantage of opportunities and New York Met miscues. Corey Patterson had a day (2 home runs, 7 runs batted in) that hopefully begins a season of fulfilled potential. Kerry Wood pitched strong to pick up the win.
The Cubs lead the National League Central.
Even after one game, that feels good to type.
Talkleft posts about another case where a U.S. citizen is being detained under proceedings that are completely secret.
Does the government have a case against Mike Hawash? We may never know. Our government should not have the ability to use secret warrants and subpoenas against citizens.
The American people should no longer tolerate the Bush Administration's on-going efforts to obstruct the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Funding promised to the commission has yet to materialize. The New York Times' editorial writers observe that:
Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically fearless inquiry. The committee's mandate includes scrutiny of intelligence failures and eight other government areas.
Ruben Navarrette has some questions for Vice President Dick Cheney. He wants to know how a subsidiary of the company Cheney ran before joining the Bush Administration keeps getting invitation-only contracts with the government. As Navarrette explains:
It is a Halliburton subsidiary -- Kellogg, Brown & Root -- that landed on a short list of companies invited by the US Agency for International Development to bid on what could grow to be a $900 million contract to rebuild Iraq. That's the same Kellogg, Brown & Root that was recently awarded, by the Defense Department, the contract to put out fires at oil fields in Iraq.Close observers of Vice President Cheney will not be surprised to learn that a veil of secrecy has been created around the process used to select these firms.
That secrecy must not be allowed to stand. The American people may accept an irresponsible wartime tax cut. But I still believe that they will not abide war profiteering. Or favorable treatment to a company who ended up providing stock that upon its sale handed the Vice President $22 million after he left Halliburton to assume the Vice Presidency.
The bidding process for these jobs needs to be open and transparent. Congress should insist upon it. Since the Republicans likely will not, it is time for some Democrats to hit the talk show circuit. In case they need the help, Navarrette provides some simple questions that the Vice President should answer:
Are the new contracts for Halliburton Cheney's idea of reciprocity? If not, why was the process done by invitation only and not opened to other bids? And why was all this done in relative quiet?Our government must not be allowed to transfer questions about these transactions to the Army Corps of Engineers and stamp them "classified."Moreover, why hasn't the vice president's office been more forthcoming in trying to clear up any confusion about any benefit that Halliburton might derive from having its former CEO now sitting to the right hand of the president? Why has Cheney's office typically referred inquiring reporters from The Washington Post to Halliburton, only to have Halliburton refer them back to the vice president?
And given that these are tax dollars we're talking about (lots of them), why isn't there more transparency in the whole process?
I know Vice President Cheney hates being forced to answer questions from other branches of government or release information to U.S. voters. If columnists like Navarrette can point out these important questions, someone in Congress needs to start asking them.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) writes that the Bush Administration is ignoring real threats to our security. He also notes that it would be easier to pay for these (and other) necessary security measures if the president's irresponsible tax cut were eliminated.
What does Nadler suggest? Purchasing the remaining excess nuclear material stored in former Soviet facilities, searching all containers that come through our ports, requiring the Coast Guard to search any ship that gets within 200 miles of our borders, and providing anti-missile systems to our commercial airline fleet.
Will we wait until our ports are used to attack us to put necessary security measures into place?
Ronald Brownstein is unimpressed with the Senate moderates' success in halving President Bush's irresponsible tax cut. As he describes the moderates' $350 billion tax cut package:
For the deficit, that's better than the alternative. But only in the sense that it's better to be hit by a car than a truck.Brownstein outlines three excellent reasons that argue against passing another tax cut today:
First, Washington is already facing mammoth deficits. Private congressional estimates project that, excluding the money raised for Social Security, the federal government could run a deficit of as much as $530 billion this year, by far the largest ever. Under Bush's plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects huge deficits every year through the next decade.The Bush tax cut package is all about pandering to voters, most of whom do not realize that they will not see huge refunds from the policy.Second, those deficits are undermining Washington's last opportunity to improve its fiscal position before the baby boom's retirement explodes the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Third, cutting taxes during a war -- not only the conflict in Iraq but also the broader struggle against terrorism -- is unprecedented in American history. It amounts to asking the next generation to fund the national defense through a higher national debt.
But Brownstein gets at the bigger picture with his second point. The first baby boomers qualify for early eligibility Social Security benefits in less than five years. Because of the Bush Administration's economic policies, and the Democrats often acquiescence to them, our nation is unprepared for the fiscal pressures the baby boomers' retirement will cause.
Instead of making it easier for future taxpayers to fund the baby boomers' retirement, we are adding to the bill because of our selfishness. This policy, in effect, is all about leaving our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren with the check for our spending today.
Is this the Republicans' real definition of compassionate conservatism? Or family values?
Douglas Pike notes with proper disgust that:
While Americans in uniform risk their lives, politicians in Washington are still cutting taxes - especially for the country-club crowd - and dropping shock-and-awe debt on future generations.
Members of the media seem to be asking more questions about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's competence these days.
As the Daily Kos notes, however, some people (including conservative Robert Novak) have been asking questions about Rumsfeld and reporting the military leadership's concerns about him for nearly a year now.
Slate's Fred Kaplan notes that our military leaders would have been prepared for some of the Iraqi tactics in this war had they not overruled the commanders who were leading the opposition during a war-gaming exercise last summer.
As Kaplan explains, the war games became little more than a scripted scenario where the United States was guaranteed a victory. He writes:
Officially, the war game was a great success; the theories were proven sound. However, on Aug. 12, as the game was winding to a close, a retired three-star U.S. Marine Corps general named Paul Van Riper wrote an e-mail to some of his friends, casting grave doubt on this conclusion.Kaplan goes on to explain how Van Riper was forbidden to use tactics that look somewhat familiar to what the Iraqis are doing. Van Riper eventually quit the exercise instead of being associated with the farce.Pentagon war games pit "Red Force" (simulating the enemy) against "Blue Force" (the United States). In this war game, as in many war games over the years, Van Riper played the Red Force commander. In his e-mail (which was promptly leaked to the Army Times then picked up, though in much less detail, by the Guardian and the Washington Post), Van Riper complained about Millennium Challenge 02, writing that, "Instead of a free-play, two-sided game … it simply became a scripted exercise." The conduct of the game did not allow "for the concepts of rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, or operational net assessment to be properly assessed. … It was in actuality an exercise that was almost entirely scripted to ensure a Blue 'win.' "
As Kaplan argues, our military should be encouraging "Red" commanders to use whatever tactics they can instead of scripting victories.
Yes, that might mean that tidy war theories may be exposed as imperfect. But it would also better prepare our troops and commanders for what they might see on the battlefield.
(Thanks to Archpundit for the link.)
Cragg Hines is annoyed with the Bush Administration's efforts to justify its horrendous tax cut package by tying it to the war with Iraq.
This is not the first time this White House has used overzealous rhetoric to try to win a political fight. As Hines reminds us:
The repeated efforts of spokesman Ari Fleischer to tie the tax cuts to jobs for returning military personnel is no less a joke. His approach is part of the variegated sales pitch for the president's budget proposal. It's reminiscent of the ever-shifting reasons that the administration offered for war against Iraq. Almost all of the points had merit, but the oscillating rationales made it seem that the White House didn't quite believe firmly in any of them and was trying to see if yet another new one would fly with doubters at home and abroad.At least this time Democrats appear willing to fight to discredit the tax cut and the White House's talking points. At least a little bit.Fleischer's scam also recalled President Bush's own sordid attempt last fall to declare that senators who were not buying his approach to anti-terrorism hook, line and sinker were "not interested in the security of the American people."
Halving a bad tax cut proposal, after all, still leaves a bad tax cut plan on the table.
The Houston Chronicle wonders in an editorial why energy companies that have stolen from consumers around the nation -- and helped create California's energy crisis -- never have to say they are sorry.
Is the Bush Administration being too optimistic about the prospects of creating a democratic Iraq in a short period of time? Former Baltimore Sun foriegn correspondent Gene Oishi thinks so.
He makes an important point about Iraq's reconstruction that many optimists in the Bush Administration seem unwilling to recognize:
The U.S. role in the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II was an outstanding example of magnanimity and statesmanship, but the United States did not introduce the concept of democracy or modern economic and industrial practices in either country. To use the German and Japanese experience as case histories for what is possible in Iraq and in the Middle East in general is an exercise in self-delusion.As Oishi explains, Japan and Germany had experience with democratic institutions, if not full-fledged democracy. Iraq, on the other hand, has no similar experience. It is also a nation created by England and France. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis have their own political aspirations. For these reasons, Oishi argues that:
To point to Japan and Germany as examples of what can be accomplished through war and rehabilitation in the Middle East is unrealistic; it is an analogy not supported by history.That is not to say it is impossible. But reconstruction will take years. A point about which the Bush Administration, and its allies who argued for this war, continue to fudge.
Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland wonders why the State Department is "suddenly missing-in-action."
David Broder turns again to the budget war being waged against the poor by Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration.
Budgets are a statement of priorities and values. Republicans in Washington have made it clear that tax cuts for the affluent are fine, even if they are passed on the backs of low-income families across the nation. While people were focused on events in Iraq, Congress this week passed unacceptably harsh budget resolutions. As Broder writes:
Neither the House nor the Senate budget truly addresses the needs of the nation. Neither one has the degree of fiscal discipline needed in a country at war and mired in a struggling economy. Either one would add close to $2 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.We learn in these budget resolutions that tax cuts for the affluent are more important to Republicans than health care for children. Or school lunch and children's nutrition programs. Or -- unbelievably -- in this time of war, veterans' benefits. Broder explains:But there is a big difference between the two versions. The House budget provides twice as big a tax cut, principally for affluent Americans, as does the Senate's. And the House version would deal low-income Americans, particularly children, a much heavier blow. If the House version -- or something close to it -- prevails, expect dire consequences for many Americans.
Rather than throw a lifeline to the states and these people, the House budget would cut federal funding for Medicaid by $92 billion and also reduce other vital programs. Veterans' benefits are slated to take a $14 billion hit. A similar cut is required for the earned-income tax credit, a subsidy for the working poor. Food stamps would be reduced by $13 billion, school lunch and other child nutrition programs by $6 billion. There are also multibillion-dollar reductions in store for such programs as foster care and adoption assistance and child support enforcement.Budgets are a statement of our values. Are we really a nation that would make passing a large tax cut that targets the affluent and would not stimulate the economy a higher priority than helping children have proper nutrition and health care, providing veterans' benefits, and ensuring we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with a crushing debt burden?
We now know the Republican Party's answer.
I have just made a post to the Political State Report about the following topic:
As California's continuing budget crisis leaves the state short on cash and requiring short-term loans to make it through the current fiscal year, more legislators are taking a serious look at making changes to portions of the state's famous Proposition 13 tax cut initiative. While Prop 13's provisions reducing residential property taxes remain sacrosanct, other parts of the initiative are now in play.To do directly to my post follow this link.
Former Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.) has started a blog. He joins former Vermont Governor Howard Dean as a 2004 presidential candidate to embrace this technology.
Make no mistake, this is the start of a significant trend. Blogs will eventually be seen as a campaign necessity. They provide an easy and inexpensive way for candidates to talk about their message in a more personal (or personal-sounding) way.
It is going to be interesting to watch how these candidate blogs evolve over the next few months. One can also expect the rise of significant campaign opposition blogs to respond to candidate statements and events in real time. It is part of the natural evolution of internet campaigning.
This is going to be fun to watch.
(Thanks to Taegan Goodard's Political Wire for the link.)
Now what will the tax cut cult try?
They finally got their wish and the Congressional Budget Office tried dynamic scoring the federal deficits away.
But it did not work. As this Washington Post editorial explains:
Now the CBO has tried it their way -- and the administration's contention that the country will magically "grow its way" out of deficits as it cuts taxes still turns out to be more or less a fairy tale. The CBO, headed by new director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who arrived straight from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, analyzed President Bush's tax and spending proposals using various models to forecast the overall effect on the economy. The report -- the CBO's first foray into dynamic analysis -- showed "small" supply-side effects, "either positive or negative," from Mr. Bush's budget. Its models indicated that the proposals would raise -- or, in most scenarios, lower -- economic growth by less than a percentage point on average in the next 10 years.Oops.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin may want to update his resume.
We know, after all, how much President Bush appreciates it when his economic assumptions are not backed by his appointees. Evidence or not, such contradictions are simply not tolerated.
Jules Witcover hopes that the Bush Administration will embrace its recent small steps away from the optimistic bluster characterizing its statements in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. As he notes:
But the administration cannot honestly refute that it sought at the outset to convey the impression that its invasion of Iraq would be a lightning bolt achieving a swift "regime change."They key word in that sentence is "honestly."
It may be time to start collecting Bush Administration statements about how our troops could be expected to be greeted as liberators and scores of Iraqi military units would surrender.
We must not allow the White House to revise history or blame the media for the optimistic message they sent to help sell this war to the American people.
Michael Kinsley explains how the United States is being quite selective in its defense of international law. We embrace those norms when convenient and subvert them when we find them inconvenient. He explains:
At the beginning of Gulf War II, we forgot . . . we forgot . . . we forgot . . . oh, yes: international law. We forgot international law once again. When the U.N. Security Council would not play ball, we declared that our own invasion of Iraq was justified as a sovereign act of long-term self-defense against potential weapons of mass destruction, by the human rights situation in Iraq and by the hope that removing Saddam Hussein will start a chain reaction of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Don't bother us with your petty i-dotting and t-crossing: We're thinking big here.Given the knee-jerk reaction of some, let me emphasize that this does not justify the Iraqi war tactics.But that kind of talk is so very last week. Come to think of it, it was just last week. Today our head's in a very different space and we're extremely concerned about violations of international law. Specifically, we're deeply offended by Iraq's violations of the Geneva Conventions in showing U.S. prisoners of war on TV. We're also angry that some Iraqi soldiers are waving the white flag in fake surrenders and violating the rules of war in other ways.
But the United States needs to understand how our selective flouting of international law reduces our national security and can lead our citizens being harmed.
Matt Miller exposes the unseemly profiteering and politics going on right now while our military men and women are fighting in Iraq.
We're supposed to be bound together as a nation in an important cause. Yet every day brings fresh news of cozy profiteering.Our political class is preparing to create a huge bill with which future generations -- including those fighting in Iraq today -- will be stuck.Halliburton, the vice president's former firm, has been awarded the first multimillion-dollar contract to rebuild Iraq. Richard Perle, one of the intellectual architects of our Iraq strategy, stands to make $725,000 from Global Crossing if his chums at the Pentagon OK a big deal.
None of this may be illegal. I'm even prepared to hear someone make the case that these deals shouldn't concern us. But not everything that is legal is right. And if that's true in peacetime, how much truer should it be now? If there's nothing unseemly about these arrangements, I'd like to hear the President himself defend them.
But the most surreal disconnect between Washington values and American values remains the President's tax cut. The Senate has now voted to slice the President's $700 billion-plus tax cut in half. A triumph of fiscal sanity, we're told. If this view becomes accepted, it will only prove how corrupt our standards of public judgment have become. [emphasis added]
The Senate's cut of the proposed tax cut was not the act of political courage some suggest. When facing $400 billion annual deficits, a $350 billion tax cut is also unsustainable.
Using the war to justify any tax cut, moreover, is simply outrageous.
James Pinkerton explains how the gap that has grown between rhetoric and reality during the early stages of this Iraqi war .
Richard Cohen reports on Secretary of State Colin Powell's plans to seek a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the war with Iraq is concluded.
Cohen was naturally skeptical that the Bush Administration would follow through on the idea given its notable slant towards Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the past. He writes:
Before the Israelis and the Palestinians can get their act together, however, the Bush administration will have to do the same. At the moment, the State Department, which used to conduct American foreign policy, has been outgunned by the Pentagon, the National Security Council (now with Elliott Abrams) and Dick Cheney, a vice president with very strong views about the Middle East. Suffice it to call them pro-Sharon.Bringing about a balanced solution to the Middle East conflict would help the Bush Administration rebuild some of the ties it burned on the road to war with Saddam. The window for such work, however, will be short once Saddam is removed from power.For this reason, a certain amount of skepticism is in order. So I asked Powell who besides him in the administration favored a plan that would mean going to the mat with Sharon. "The president," he responded quickly. I asked if he was certain of that.
Given the new dangers we have unleashed through the world through our attack on Saddam, we need to turn off the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fear, unfortunately, that we will soon have many others with which to deal.
While I have no doubt that the United States military will eventually defeat Saddam, we have learned that one of our military planners' new theories was somewhat overoptimistic.
No, that's a bit too kind. It was wrong. As Slate's Fred Kaplan notes:
Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters on March 22, "This will be a campaign unlike any other in history—a campaign characterized by shock, by surprise, by flexibility …"We will regroup, of course. We will win this war.But what if the enemies are not shocked or surprised—or if they are at first, but then quickly recover and launch their own campaign of shock and surprise?
The problem, in the end, were the misrepresentations made by the Bush Administration about how easy the war would be to win. Compared to other wars through history, this war is going quite well.
But the expectations were not based on what happened in history. They were based on misstatements made by leading Bush Administration officials.
Misstatements that must be remembered.
Well, it is two years too late. But federal regulators are now admitting that the California energy crisis was brought about by market manipulation.
Better late than never, I suppose. But, the fight is not over. As Governor Gray Davis (D) argues:
"Show me the money," California Gov. Gray Davis declared. "Where's the $9 billion that we've been asking for, for two years? That is when I'll finally feel vindicated, when we get the money back that these energy companies stole from this state."We will soon learn whether the federal regulators so late to realizing the illegal games being played by energy companies will back up their words with some real action.
David Broder calls attention to another set of first responders that are not getting the support they deserve: those who serve in our nation's military reserves. He writes about Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who still serves in the Naval Reserve while in Congress:
Kirk put his finger on a challenge that Pentagon officials and many others in Congress recognize. While much has been said -- and rightly so -- about the needs of the "first responders" in homeland defense, the police, firefighters and emergency medical crews, the nation also is lagging in its obligations to the reservists who increasingly are the first responders in any military mission.Our military's makeup has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Our national policy for reservists has not kept pace with these changes.When retired Rear Adm. Thomas Hall, the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, testified before a Senate Armed Services subcommittee last week, he noted that the 1,190,000 reserve and National Guard forces "now comprise almost 50 percent" of the U.S. military. Pentagon figures show that 212,617 National Guard and reserve members had been placed on active duty as of last week. As Hall said, reserve personnel "provide the majority of force protection to military installations worldwide. . . . It is now routine for the Army Guard to plan and execute Bosnia missions. They are scheduled to relieve the active Army in Kosovo," where they already provide most of the logistics support.
More than one-third of all reservists take a pay cut when they are called to active service. Their jobs, while in theory guaranteed, are less secure than they should be. Small businesses have great difficulty filling spaces for employees that will return on some unsure future date.
If our military is going to be so reliant on reservists, policies must be put into place to make that transition easier. As Broder notes:
In a time when few American civilians are being asked for any sacrifice, the burdens of these reservists and their families call upon the conscience of the country.
Here we go again: the Bush Administration's attempts to hinder the 9-11 Commission are continuing.
Now the White House is balking on a reasonable supplemental budget request made by the Commission as it does its work. As Stephen Push, one of the leaders of the 9-11 families told Time magazine:
"They've never wanted the commission and I feel the White House has always been looking for a way to kill it without having their finger on the murder weapon."Thankfully, some people are still looking at the Bush Administration's red hands.
What's coming over the next few days? Retired General Wesley Clark maps out a costly scenario.
(Thanks to Atrios for the link.)
Slate's Jack Shafer explains why Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not the best person to lecture anyone about complying with the Geneva Conventions.
The Houston Chronicle's editorial board takes a necessary look at our nation's fiscal position. The outlook is bleak.
This past week the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $2.2 trillion budget for fiscal 2004. The measure preserves the $726 billion in tax cuts the president wants over the next decade. It makes no provision for the cost of the war and the expensive rehabilitation of Iraq.The level of irresponsibility displayed by the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans with their tax cut advocacy and a refusal until yesterday to admit to the scope and cost of the Iraqi invasion is simply staggering.
Our children and grandchildren are being asked to pick up the tab of our domestic and foreign policies, notwithstanding the president's lofty State of the Union rhetoric:
This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.That is exactly the course suggested by the Chronicle's editorial writers.
The president and his supporters in Congress need to be candid concerning their budget decisions and the red ink they will spawn. In a time of war, courage is needed on the home front, as well. While the politicians might tremble at the thought of transparency, they needn't doubt the willingness of American patriots to make the sacrifices demanded for the good of the nation.We can chalk this up as yet another promise broken.
Since President Bush is going to fight for his domestic priorities, I hope Democrats will fight for theirs...
One of the most vile attacks made in the months of debate leading up to the Iraqi war is that those who opposed it were unpatriotic or hated America.
Now Robert Novak finds that he needs to defend himself against this hateful charge, made in the supposedly mainstream National Review by David "Axis of Evil" Frum. Novak writes:
We are accused of advocating ''a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.'' Concluding, he writes of us: ''[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it, and they will take pleasure if it should happen. They began by hating the neo-conservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.''Hating their country?
Dissent is not tolerated. Even among conservatives.
Jules Witcover writes about how Democrats have fitfully moved behind the president now that the troops are engaged in war with Iraq.
In both the House and Senate, Democrats niggled over the language of the resolutions to make certain they put equal or greater emphasis on support for the troops fighting the war as on backing of the president.Of course Democrats should support the troops. Of course Democrats should now hope for a quick end to this conflict.The wording of the Senate resolution, which "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief," implies a distinction between the constitutional hat Mr. Bush wears as head of the American military and the one he wears in his role as the nation's, and his party's, political leader.
So does the House resolution, which expresses "unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander in Chief for his leadership and decisive action in the conduct of the military operation in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism." In fact, many Democrats continue to question whether the president ever made a persuasive case for a link between Iraq and the war on terrorism. [emphasis added]
But one wonders why the House Democrats ended up voting for a resolution that seems to tie the war with Iraq and the war on terrorism. That is a case that still has not been made by the White House.
From my latest post to the Political State Report:
Are California voters angry enough that they will consider major reforms to the state's budget process? The initial sponsors (the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Health Access, and the League of Women Voters) of an ambitious new initiative effort hope so. The proposed changes target one of Proposition 13's requirements: the two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes.Click here to read the entire post.
I hope President Bush does not become the latest world leader to betray the Kurds. Slate's Timothy Noah has been tracking this subject the past few weeks and now thinks that:
It's still conceivable Bush will find some motive to screw the Kurds after the war starts. But the likelihood that the Kurds will get screwed before the war is now very remote.Turkey missed its chance...
Now I know that some conservatives now argue that any criticism of President Bush now is unpatriotic. But let me quote that noted radical, Thomas Friedman, about the Bush Administration's recent inadequate foreign policy conduct:
The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true.That's pretty direct. As is the evidence in support of that proposition. Friedman continues:
On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister — a last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq that refused to avoid war. This time the whole world saw President Bush make one trip, which didn't quite make it across the Atlantic, to sell the war to the only two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone Saddam. France's role in blocking a credible U.N. disarmament program was shameful.No matter what happens now, we must remember the failures that brought us here with fewer allies than we should have. We should also remember the cynicism France brought to the debate and relegate that country to the world's back benches.
Friedman now says that he will devote his column to figuring out how to "turn these lemons into lemonade." Given our national history, and this president's failures in Afghanistan, this subject is of the utmost importance.
The only possible way this war can end with the United States safer is if we are serious about our commitment to rebuild Iraq and protect its people. We must make good on this promise.
The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh looks at British Prime Minister Tony Blair and suffers a case of leadership envy. He writes:
As war approaches, it's not George W. Bush's solemn Monday speech to the nation that sticks in one's mind, but rather the strange Sunday summit in the Azores. Watching Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it was hard not to suffer from a case of leadership envy. In that most crucial of moments, Blair was calm, articulate, and forceful. In contrast, Bush seemed peevish, dismissive, and impatient.Of all the people involved in the latest diplomatic showdown, Blair deserves the most respect.Even if you believe that, in a dangerous world, force must remain an important instrument of foreign policy, Sunday's tableau didn't present a portrait of a US president who one could comfortably say had exhausted the realistic diplomatic possibilities before drawing his line in the sand.
Blair took a position that was unpopular with his people initially and led them. He faced his opposition. (No phony press conferences for him.) He articulated his position. Given the history of the Anglo-American alliance, Blair had to support the United States. He, unlike some, understands the obligations of alliance and diplomacy.
Lehigh now argues that the Bush Administration must do all it can to improve Blair's internal position. I hope this is an obvious conclusion for Bush and his advisors. Blair's enemies are already looking to pounce, and Bush owes him.
Update: London Observer columnist Will Hutton offers this excellent analysis of Tony Blair's motivations.
Do you remain confident about our government's claims that our homeland security is improving after watching one man in a tractor make downtown Washington, D.C., a parking lot the last three days?
James Pinkerton explains the scope of the gamble President Bush is taking in implementing the preemption doctrine:
If he wins, he'll be claiming the biggest pot of all - unchallenged sway over the planet. If he loses, well, let's put it this way: the stakes get higher in the era of weapons of mass destruction. But in the meantime, he has a strange way of playing his cards.Some may think that a quick win will awe the rest of the world into accepting our hyperpower status. History does not teach that lesson.
As Pinkerton notes, four of the world's eight nuclear powers are against this new policy. He wonders:
Will those countries be building more weapons, or fewer, in the years to come? It's worth recalling that in 1945, the American explosion of atomic weapons over Japan did not "shock and awe" the Soviets into submission. It inspired them into a nuclear arms race - and other countries, too.
A Baltimore Sun editorial today reminds readers that:
Rarely is war simply a test of arms. Every war has a political context, and the aftermath of every war is nothing but political. There is every reason to hope for and expect an American triumph on the field, but this administration has demonstrated an especially inept hand at international politics, and that's why the potential repercussions of this war are so disturbing.
Paul Krugman recaps how the world arrived at this point, and what recent events could mean for future debate in the United States:
There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it's not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn't trust the Bush administration's motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.I would not bet on that. Perhaps, however, Democrats who gave their benefit of the doubt to the Bush Administration last fall when the president asked for a use of force resolution will realize their mistake.So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge.
More important: perhaps they will vow never to make a similar one again when dealing with this president.
E.J. Dionne writes about one of the "great defects" in the Bush Administration's run-up to war: its failure to talk candidly about the sacrifices that are coming. Dionne argues:
Supporters of going to war have regularly chastised their opponents for refusing to face the reality of Saddam Hussein's threat and the need for radical measures to eliminate it.Now that preemption is official, the Bush Administration has an obligation to be frank about the costs of this policy. To tell us its cost estimates for this war. To tell us its cost estimates for the Iraq occupation to follow. To outline the next steps that preemption requires.Now it is their turn to face reality. From a desire not to unsettle the delicate foundations of their political coalition, supporters of a grand new American role in reordering the world have held their tongues about the cost of their enterprise. They have not said what price or burden or hardship they are asking of their fellow Americans, especially of their own supporters. Perhaps Bush will lead by breaking the silence and ask more of us -- and of himself.
One should not hold his or her breath waiting for these answers.
The world changed last night with President Bush's speech. The new preemption doctrine is now in full effect. In Iraq, the White House has found the site for the policy's initial implementation. The Iraq hawks' decade-long efforts to find a rationale for their new policy have finally reached their end.
I really hope I am wrong about the likely consequences of this gamble.
Looking at this new world, David Broder makes two important points in his column today. First, he acknowledges that the Bush Administration has been after the end of the Saddam Hussein regime since September 2001. As Broder writes:
Skeptics may argue that the United States has yet to produce convincing evidence of a link between the Baghdad regime and the al Qaeda terrorists. But the link exists in the mind of the commander in chief, and he is prepared to act on that conviction.Second, Broder notes that Congress now, and especially Democrats, have a responsibility to think carefully and question sharply the long-term consequences of the White House policy initiatives. As Broder writes:
What we know is that the imminent prospect of preemptive war with Iraq has damaged U.S. relations with much of the world -- opening rifts with major trading partners such as France and Germany, with Russia and China, and even with neighboring Canada and Mexico. The aftereffects in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world cannot be gauged.This is not what Bush sought or anticipated -- any more than he anticipated, when he launched his course of large-scale tax cuts, the giant deficits that now loom for the United States, threatening the economy and vital domestic programs. The members of Congress who so willingly endorsed his Iraq policy last autumn will be debating his budget this week. It behooves them to consider the consequences carefully this time.
I am headed to the California State Democratic Convention this weekend, so opportunities to blog may be limited through Monday morning.
Have a good and safe weekend!
Thomas Friedman today offers another excellent column about the Iraq situation. It offers several important observations, like this one:
My main criticism of President Bush is that he has failed to acknowledge how unusual this war of choice is — for both Americans and the world — and therefore hasn't offered the bold policies that have to go with it. Instead, the president has hyped the threat and asserted that this is a war of no choice, then combined it all with his worst pre-9/11 business as usual: budget-busting tax cuts, indifference to global environmental concerns, a gas-guzzling energy policy, neglect of the Arab-Israeli peace process and bullying diplomacy.The refusal to recognize this is one of the reasons reasonable people can question the Bush Administration's motives. This single-mindedness has also broken the national and international unity that the United States enjoyed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Friedman offers a suggestion for a bold diplomatic move that would put the onus on the Arab world and the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese. I hope the Bush Administration will try it, or something like it.
Now Senators are frustrated with the Bush Administration's refusal to offer many details about its plans to rebuild Iraq following the potential upcoming war. Incidents like this one from yesterday do not inspire confidence. Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin explains:
Senators from both parties worried aloud that the administration has not devoted as much attention to post-conflict peacemaking as it has to war plans. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) expressed frustration that the Pentagon declined the committee's request to produce retired Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, coordinator of the new office of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance, or one of his deputies.Blowing off a Senate hearing to hold a press briefing is a sign of the ultimate in disrespect. Will Congress demand that its Constitutional role be respected?The senators' spirits did not improve when Lugar read a note during the hearing announcing that the Pentagon officials were briefing reporters on reconstruction plans at the same time Garner had been invited to testify. A Senate staff member said the Pentagon called the committee during the hearing to say the briefing was underway.
"I'm terribly concerned that we are not as far along as we should be at this juncture, considering that we may just be days away from military action," Dodd said. "But, frankly, none of us really knows because the administration, unfortunately, has been extremely vague. The time has come for the administration to be fully candid with all of us, and to listen to what we and others have to say about its plans and timetable for action."
Probably not. Why start now?
The Washington Post editorial page hopes that northern Virginia Democrats will seek to find a replacement for Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.).
As the Post editorial explains, Moran's ethical problems revealed last year should have been enough to spur Democrats to seek a replacement. His comments last week blaming American Jews for the possible war with Iraq should now prove the final straw.
I endorse that view. His ethical problems and irresponsible comments are simply unacceptable for a Member of Congress. Questioning the motives behind the Bush Administration's drive to war with Iraq is appropriate. Even necessary. But, as the Washington Post editorial explains:
It's perfectly legitimate to debate Israel's place in U.S. Mideast policy, or Israel's own behavior; charges of anti-Semitism shouldn't be permitted to stifle criticism. It's not anti-Semitic to stand up for Palestinians' human rights. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic -- just demonstrably wrong -- to argue that Mr. Bush's Iraq policy is motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel. But the argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it attributes to Jews or "the Jewish community" a single view and a nefarious influence. Some Jews and some non-Jews, in Israel and America and Europe, support disarming Iraq; some don't. In their respective countries, they try to make the arguments on their merits. Mr. Moran and his ilk should do the same.
Paul Krugman has locked himself into a fixed-rate mortgage. Why? Because he has well-founded fears about what is going to happen to interest rates in the near future.
They are going to rise, especially if President Bush gets his tax cut package through Congress.
Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.Worse, as Krugman notes, all of these numbers are exceedingly optimistic. The deficit projections are bad enough. Worse, they do not include the staggering unfunded liabilities included within the Social Security and Medicare programs. Krugman explains:A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: "When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises." Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.
But what's really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.We need to prepare for the boomers' impending retirement. We need to save resources to help finance the benefits they are expecting.That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 — make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 — percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. "Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen." So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.
Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident — the fiscal train wreck — is already under way.
That is not the Bush Administration policy. Future generations will be quite unimpressed with our lack of planning and our inescapable fiscal irresponsibility.
Especially if Krugman correctly predicts -- as I fear he does -- the likely policy solution future governments will be forced to implement.
David Broder is not impressed with what we learned about President Bush or the White House press corps during the president's press conference last week.
When it comes to the president, Broder saw more of the scripted, repetitous man we came to know on the campaign trail.
As candidate and as president, Bush has demonstrated his belief that persuasion for him is often reduced to simple repetition. His is the rhetoric of the sound bite. It works well on the campaign trail, where different audiences in different locales need to hear the same message. However, when the same point is made over and over in the same words in a single news conference, his rhetoric tends to sound scripted, and the effect can be disquieting.To say the least.
Of course, part of this problem was the result of the questions. The White House press corps, as a group, did not distinguish themselves with their queries. Broder adds:
I was astonished and dismayed that in the first opportunity to quiz the president in four months, not one question was asked about the shaky economy or the out-of-control federal budget. The very next day came news of the largest monthly jump in unemployment since the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and an official estimate that Bush's budget proposals would add $2.7 trillion to the national debt in the next 10 years. An economically cushioned set of reporters seemingly couldn't care less about this looming disaster. Talk about being out of touch!Of course, I am sure Karl Rove and the gang at the White House were happy that the president got a pass on the economic issues.
E.J. Dionne makes several important observations about the current Iraq debate:
But the wreckage the administration's Iraq policy leaves in its wake cannot be blamed on France alone. The loss of allies and the turn of public opinion in so many democratic nations against us reflect fears that the United States is going to war not just to rid Hussein of weapons but on behalf of a grand theory. The theory sees unfettered American power as capable of remaking the world. That's certainly bold. It's also dangerous.The paradox is that creating the more democratic world we seek requires more than power. It demands alliances, institutions and trust. Doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons could squander all three.
I just received Charlie Cook's weekly "Off to the Races" column via e-mail. It will not be pleasant reading for Karl Rove.
(You should subscribe to Cook column's e-mail service. It is free, just click here for more information.)
Cook writes:
Bush's "re-elect" numbers may sound alarm bells for his team. In the latest survey, when asked, "If the election were held today, would you definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, consider voting for someone else or definitely vote for someone else?" 38 percent of registered voters said that they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush; 37 percent said that they would definitely vote for someone else; and 22 percent said that they would consider voting for someone else. On this question, Bush's re-elect support in January and February ran 41 percent, with someone else between 31 percent and 32 percent.The president's overall job approval rating, moreover, has dipped to 51 percent in the latest Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report poll.
The White House's problems? Iraq, the economy, and a sense that the nation is headed in the wrong direction.
If we go to war with Iraq (it almost seems silly to write that disclaimer at this point, but play along), one can expect at least a temporary bump in President Bush's poll numbers. The fundamental problems, however, will remain.
Michael Shellenberger and Adam Werbach write that it is time for Democrats to propose a program to end our reliance on foreign oil.
One issue above all others has the potential to excite both conservative and liberal wings of the party on national security, and that's freeing America from its dependence on Middle East oil. Voters understand that our reliance on this oil increases America's vulnerability to terrorist attacks, wars and economic turbulence. They know that oil isn't behind all of the problems in the Middle East but that it exacerbates enough of them to demand a response. And across the board, voters fear our president doesn't take the issue seriously.This is a wonderful and necessary idea. It would be an investment for ourselves and future generations.Democrats today have an opportunity to inspire the country with a hopeful vision, akin to a new Apollo Project, one that weans America off Middle East oil in favor of solar and wind energy in 10 years while creating millions of new jobs.
Democrats have proven that they can lose to Karl Rove with small ideas. It is time to get right at one of President Bush's weaknesses and propose a new energy economy, one worthy of the 21st Century.
I called for an energy Apollo program in this space on October 22, 2002. It is time to end our dependence on oil. It is not only bad for the environment. It is a national security risk.
Matt Miller argues that Democrats are making a large mistake by trying another "Mediscare" campaign against President Bush when they should be trying to enact a larger policy change.
Democrats cannot win a policy debate about which party has the better prescription drug coverage plan. Democrats need to think larger. It is time to take the president's idea and expand it. It is time to use the president's plan to argue for universal health care coverage.
Forcing this health debate to be about universal coverage instead of merely about prescription drugs would be a political and substantive winner for Democrats. If the debate is simply about who's got the better prescription drug plan, Bush will successfully blur the issue. Democrats need to realize that the old "Medi-scare" won't beat a "compassionate" President with the megaphone of the White House like it routed that congressional meanie, Newt Gingrich.Democrats are not going to win elections by thinking small and blurring their differences with the White House.But if Democrats play a little jujitsu and make Bush's Medicare logic the rationale for universal health coverage, Bush will be stuck. He won't match them because he'd have to give up his tax cuts for the rich to cover the uninsured. Democrats could use Bush's indefensible inconsistency here - seniors, yes; 40 million other luckless Americans, no - to drive home the differences in the two parties' priorities.
Centrist Democrats endorsed a plan similar to the one Miller describes years ago. Nearly one-third of all Americans under the age of 65 went without health insurance at some point over the past two years. That is a national crisis that requires a response.
At least from the Democrats.
The Rittenhouse Review's James Capozzola has lately given Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) grief on a nearly daily basis. With good reason.
(Aside: Capozzola really should get in the race against Specter next year. As a former resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I hope there is a spirited race.)
But Specter does deserve credit for being one of the few Senators trying to force some accountability on the FBI and its leadership. Robert Novak reports:
It defies credibility that FBI Director Robert Mueller did not reply to an e-mail letter from agent Coleen Rowley, whose previous whistleblowing earned her Time's person-of-the-year status. She was not alone. For an even longer period, Mueller ignored a written complaint from a U.S. senator.This kind of arrogance is simply unacceptable. Especially after the record of failure amassed recently by the FBI.Last Tuesday, the very day a frustrated Rowley gave her latest whistleblowing letter to two newspapers, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania confronted the non-responsive FBI chief face-to-face. Rowley contended that the FBI is unprepared to cope with a terrorist onslaught following a U.S. attack on Iraq. Specter was concerned that Mueller had not quickly corrected the FBI's unduly heavy burden of proof that played a part in the intelligence failure leading to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Apart from the substance of this criticism, Mueller's decision to ignore a world-class whistleblower and a particularly tenacious senator suggests not all that much has changed at the FBI. J. Edgar Hoover's arrogance toward the outside world permeated the bureau's culture and has not been obliterated. Even after 9/11, local police chiefs complain the FBI still resists sharing information.
It is time to clean house. Starting at the top with Director Mueller.
Jules Witcover observes that while President Bush may have been subdued during his press conference last week, his basic argument remained unchanged. The different tone did not indicate any change in substance.
Once again, the president said "multiple intelligence sources" showed that the Iraqi dictator was continuing to develop such weapons, but once again he offered no new proof. Nor did he explain, beyond saying he had "good evidence," why Iraq is so imminent a threat to the United States that the U.N. inspections had to be cut off rather than let them go on in return for winning broader U.N. support.Ever since the Iraq hawks saw their opening in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, this debate has not been about disarming Iraq. The only outcome this White House would accept was Saddam Hussein's removal from office.Instead, he merely restated his justification for pre-emptive action absent any new U.N. Security Council resolution to attack. It's his job, he said, not only "to protect America" but also to "protect and defend the Constitution" - which, as we know, says Congress "shall have the power ... to declare war."
Whether it serves the short or long-term national security interests of the United States or not. Whether we were prepared for the cost of rebuilding Iraq or not. Whether our homeland security improvements were ready to protect us or not. Whether our public health infrastructure was ready to handle the inevitable retaliatory attacks or not.
In a better world, our Representatives and Senators would be demanding answers to these questions. Or at least debating them.
Cynthia Tucker notes that many Americans now represent the worst threats to freedom of speech. She cites the recent experience of an anti-war protestor as an example:
Nevertheless, for the offense of exercising her rights as a citizen of one of the world's greatest democracies, she was spat on, threatened and yelled at. One man went so far as to denounce her for wearing a cross around her neck, "insinuating I was not a Christian," she said.Everyone agrees with freedom of speech as long as we agree with the arguments being made by others. The real test is supporting the freedom of speech rights of those with whom one disagrees.As she wrote in an op-ed essay for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "I was frightened that my neighbors were going to hurt me because I dared to express my opinion. This could not be happening. Not in America, right?"
Our nation is in increasing danger of failing that test.
Former Senator Gary Hart, a co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, argues that attacking Iraq detracts from the war against terror.
Iraq is a detour from the war on terrorism. Hussein mysteriously morphed into Osama bin Laden, or vice-versa. But at least we have the advantage -- for the moment -- of knowing what country Hussein is in. Instead of wondering how many Americans will be sacrificed to urban warfare in Baghdad, we should be concerned with equipping and training police and firefighters in Baltimore, Dallas and Denver. Right now, first things are being put second and third as our leaders obsess about an isolated Iraq.Hart also makes other excellent observations about the state of homeland security, the preemption doctrine, and the Bush Administration's continued lack of candor.
Perhaps Hart cannot win the Democratic presidential nomination. But I hope he runs nonetheless. Democrats need to have a serious debate about national security and homeland defense issues. If Hart is in the race, he would push that necessary debate forward.
David Broder, thankfully, devotes another column to the Bush Administration's continued dismissal of the fiscal crises affecting a majority of state governments.
The combined deficits facing the states are now estimated to reach $80 billion. The cutbacks and layoffs to resu